Justicia terapeutica

Pew Center on the States (2008). One in 100: Behind Bars in America 2008.
Karberg & James (2005). Substance dependence, abuse, and treatment of jail inmates, 2002. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Dept. of Justice; Fazel et al. (2006). Substance abuse and dependence in prisoners: A systematic review. Addiction, 101, 181-191.
Belenko & Peugh (1998). Behind bars:Substance abuse and America’s prison population. New York: National Center on Addiction & Substance Abuse.
Karberg & James (2005). Substance dependence, abuse, and treatment of jail inmates, 2002. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Dept. of Justice; Fazel et al. (2006). Substance abuse and dependence in prisoners: A systematic review. Addiction, 101, 181-191.
See., e.g.,Warren, R. K. (2008). Evidence-Based Practice to Reduce Recidivism: Implications for State Judiciaries. Williamsburg, VA: Crime & Justice Institute, National Institute of Corrections and National Center for State Courts.
Langan & Levin (2002). Recidivism of prisoners released in 1994. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice; Spohn & Holleran (2002). The effect ofimprisonment on recidivism rates of felony offenders: A focus on drug offenders. Criminology, 40, 329-357.
See, e.g., Hanlon et al. (1998). The response of drug abuser parolees to a combination of treatment and intensive supervision. Prison Journal, 78, 31-44; Martin et al. (1999). Three-year outcomes of therapeutic community treatment for drug-involved offenders in Delaware. Prison Journal,79, 294-320; Nurco et al. (1991). Recent research on the relationship between illicit drug use and crime. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 9, 221-249.
Pew Public Safety Performance Project. (2007). Public Safety, Public Spending: Forecasting America’s Prison Population 2007-2011.
The Urban Institute. (2008). To Treat or Not to Treat: Evidence on the Prospects of Expanding Treatment forDrug-Involved Offenders.
Roman et al. (2003). Recidivism rates for Drug Court graduates: Nationally based estimate - Final report. Washington DC: The Urban Institute and Caliber.
Langan & Cunniff. (1992). Recidivism of felons on probation. Washington DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2005). Adult Drug Courts: Evidence indicates recidivism reductions andmixed results for other outcomes [No. GAO-05-219]. Washington, DC: Author.
Aos et al. (2006). Evidence-based public policy options to reduce future prison construction, criminal justice costs, and crime rates. Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy; Lattimer (2006). A meta-analytic examination of drug treatment courts: Do they reduce recidivism? Canada Dept. of Justice; Lowenkampet al. (2005). Are Drug Courts effective: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Community Corrections, Fall, 5-28; Shaffer (2006). Reconsidering Drug Court effectiveness: A meta-analytic review. Las Vegas, NV: Dept. of Criminal Justice, University of Nevada; Wilson,et al. (2006). A systematic review of Drug Court effects on recidivism. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 2, 459-487.
See, e.g.,Belenko (2002). Drug Courts. In C.G. Leukefeld et al. (Eds), Treatment of Drug Offenders: Policies and Issues. Marlowe et al. (2003). A Sober Assessment of Drug Courts, Federal Sentencing. Reporter, 16, 153.
Gottfredson et al. (2005). The Baltimore City Drug Treatment Court: 3-year outcome study. Evaluation Review, 29, 42-64.
Finigan et al. (2007). The impact of a mature Drug Court over10 years of operation: Recidivism and costs. Portland, OR: NPC Research, Inc.
The Urban Institute. (2008). To Treat or Not to Treat: Evidence on the Prospects of Expanding Treatment for Drug-Involved Offenders

CORTES DE DROGAS
Una solución viable a
Delincuentes dependientes de drogas
Por West Huddleston

Hacia el final de la década de los '80, muchas de las cortes en los Estados...